1 2025:CGHC:33889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6525 of 2022 1 - Meghraj Dewangan S/o Shri Nand Kumar Dewangan Aged About 39 Years (Instructor Weaving), R/o Rani Road Champa, Ward No. 20 Dewangan Para, Pin- 495671, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Narendra Singh Uikey S/o Shri Haricharan Singh Uikey Aged About 47 Years (Instructor Weaving), R/o Vill. And Post Plari Indra Chauk, Tahsil Gurrur, Distt. Balod Pin- 491222, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shiv Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Hiralal Dewangan Aged About 40 Years (Store Keeper), R/o Hanuman Chauk, Dewangan Mohlla Champa Distt. - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh 495671 4 - Abhay Kumar Dewangan S/o Puri Ram Dewangan Aged About 37 Years (Warper), R/o Purani Basti, Ranipara Near Barambava Mandir Ward No. 12 Janjgir, Distt. - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh 495667 5 - Narottam Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Chhote Lal Dewangan Aged About 42 Years (Expert Weaver), R/o Dewangan Para, Near Sitla Mandir, Ward No. 10, Takhatpur, Distt. - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495671 6 - Narayan Prasad Dewangan S/o Late Manbodh Dewangan Aged About 46 Years (Sizer) R/o Neem Chauk, Dewangan Para, Kurda, Champa Distt. - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh 495671 7 - Madhoram Dewangan S/o Late Ramnath Dewangan Aged About 50 Years (Lab Attendant) R/o Sultaniya Gli, Ward No. 08, Sarangarh Distt. - Sarangarh Chhattisgarh 496445 8 - Manghi Lal Dewangan S/o Late Anand Ram Dewangan Aged About 42 Years (Lab Attendant ), R/o Vill. And Post Katgi Ward No. 15, Thana And Tahsil - Kasdol, Purani Bus Stand Katgi, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 493344 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Department General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 2 - Secretary Department Of Rural Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Directorate Of Rural Industries (Handloom Division), Fourth Floor, Block - A Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Indian Institute Of Handloom Technology Throutgh Principal Indian Institute Of Handloom Technology, Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Its Secretary, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl.A.G. alongwith Shri Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. For Respondent No.5 : Shri Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to the cases of the petitioners. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) and direct the respondent no.2 and 3 not to fill the posts in which the petitioners are working through direct recruitment. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the cases of the petitioners allowing them benefit of regularization in their services. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities and the Committee to consider the pending representation and claim of the petitioners for regularization and take decision at the earliest allowing the 3 said benefit. 10.5 That, any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances be also granted.” 2. The details of the petitioners, including the date of the appointment, the posts to which they were appointed, and the date of their joining, are given in the tabular form as under:- Sl. No. Name Post Order of Appointment Joining Date 1 Meghraj Dewangan (Instructor Weaving) 10.6.2009 16.6.2009 2 Narendra Singh Uikey, (Instructor Weaving) 10.6.2009 22.6.2009 3 Shiv Kumar Dewangan (Store Keeper) 10.6.2009 16.6.2009 4 Abhay Kumar Dewangan (Warper) 10.6.2009 17.6.2009 5 Narottam Kumar Dewangan (Expert Weaver) 10.6.2009 18.6.2009 6 Narayan Prasad Dewangan (Sizer) 10.6.2009 16.6.2009 7 Madhoram Dewangan (Lab Attendant) 10.6.2009 18.6.2009 8 Manghi Lal Dewangan (Lab Attendant) 10.6.2009 16.6.2009 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that initially, in the year 2007, vide order dated 18.9.2007, respondent No.2 sanctioned various posts in respondent No.4/Institute. Thereafter, the respondents issued an advertisement on 13.8.2008; the petitioners, being eligible, participated in the recruitment process and were selected and appointed against different posts as per their eligibility, in accordance with the law. He would further submit that, according to one of the conditions of the appointment order, the services of the petitioners 4 would be governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2004. He would also submit that the petitioners were appointed on contract to the posts held by them, and their services were extended from time to time. He would further argue that the petitioners have continued for more than 15 years as of now under the respondents. He would also argue that this Hon’ble Court in its judgment dated 19/2/2025 rendered in WPS No.6234/2023 and other connected petitions, held that the procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed temporary but who has, for a considerable period, performed the same duties as those performed by a regular employee. He would contend that the petitioners have become over- aged and are now ineligible to apply for or secure alternative employment. They continued to serve as contract employees facing artificial breaks in designation and without being regularised in service, despite the fact that:- (i) there existed a sanctioned vacant post; and (ii) there was a continuous need of the petitioners to the institution. (iii) the petitioners were appointed after following the proper procedure and (iv) the petitioners possess the requisite educational/technical qualification for their post. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further state that the petitioners have no equal bargaining power and, therefore, are compelled to accept the terms of the appointment as offered by the respondent authorities. He would lastly submit that a direction may be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners. 5 In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jivanlal vs. Pravin Krishna, Principal Secretary and Others, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 747, Jaggo vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and Vinod Kumar vs. UOI, reported in 2024 (9) SCC 327 and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 14 of 2017 (Gopi Sao and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh), vide order dated 7.12.2018. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that the petitioners were appointed on a contract and have no vested right to claim regularization. He would contend that the appointments were made according to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2004, and the services of the petitioners were extended from time to time based on the evaluation of their performance. He would also submit that the Rules, 2004, have been repealed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Samvida Niyukti) Rules, 2012. According to Rule 11(4) of the Rules, 2012, the services of the petitioners were liable to be automatically terminated on the expiry of the contractual period. He would argue that the petitioners cannot claim regularization in contravention of the terms and conditions stipulated in their appointment orders. Accordingly, he would contend that this petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) has considered the case of the employees for regularization and has passed the following order, which reads as under:- “20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad- hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below: “6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…” 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of 7 the appellants’ engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also 8 demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 7. A perusal of the documents available on the record would show that the petitioners were appointed to the posts of Instructor (Weaving), Store Keeper, Warper, Expert Weaver, Sizer, and Lab Attendant vide order dated 10.6.2009. The petitioners have been discharging their 9 duties to the utmost satisfaction of the departmental authorities and have continued to work with the respondents for over 10 years under bona fide and legitimate expectations of being regularized, particularly in light of the circular dated 5.3.2008 and the observations made by this Court in various cases, as well as the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Given the aforesaid facts and considering the aspects that the claim of the petitioners till date has not been considered and finalized by the respondent authorities, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to obtain necessary instructions at the earliest, ensuring consideration of the claim of the petitioners for regularization keeping in view the circular of the State Government dated 5.3.2008 and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo (supra). 9. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to make representation(s) before the concerned authorities within a period of 30 days and in turn, the authorities concerned are directed to decide the same within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi